A
- Status
M
mikekle
Guest
In mans opinion…Yes, that is absolutely true, but I have a feeling the way God sees things is much different.
L
livingwordunity
Guest
You are thinking of chattel slavery which is the invention of the ancient pagans. The difference between a “slave” to the ancient Hebrews and a slave to the ancient Mesopotamian pagans is that it was written into ancient Hebrew law that the “slave” had rights and could be set free. This was a revolutionary concept in the ancient world since in pagan chattel slavery a slave had absolutely no rights and was treated as being less than human. Pagan societies such as ancient Athens boasted that they had a free society because the citizens of Athens were free even though they had chattel slaves. Yet, secular historians seem eager to forgive the pagan societies even though these were the ones who actually had the worst form of slavery. Slavery was very common in the time when Christianity began because the societies were pagan. So, rather than encourage a slave revolt, the early Christians encouraged the masters to treat their “slave” like a Christian brother. In other words, the “slave” wasn’t treated like a slave when Christian values were followed. Later on, popes condemned slavery before it was condemned by secular governments such as in the United States. Here is what I’m talking about:
Pope condemned slavery in the United States 24 years before the Emancipation Proclamation
The Emancipation Proclamation was signed January 1, 1863. But it can be argued that Lincoln’s motive for freeing the slaves was military strategy since freeing the slaves would add more fighters to the North as well as encourage slaves to turn on the South from within. This appeal for the slaves to join the North and become soldiers in the fight is contained within the Emancipation Proclamation itself.
But 24 years before that, on December 3 1839 Pope Gregory XVI issued the following:
“By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter.”
Sources
Sublimus Dei (On the Enslavement and Evangelization of Indians) May 29, 1537
In Supremo Apostolatus (Condemning the Slave Trade) December 3, 1839
The Emancipation Proclamation (January 1, 1863)
This post (#23)
R
Reep
Guest
**
livingwordunity:
Even if a there was ever a Pope that owned a “slave”, is being a “slave” such a bad deal if a “slave” is treated justly and fairly? “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.” (Colossians 4:1)**
Being a slave is a repudiation of the free will God gives us and a violation of our human dignity. For a slave in ancient Rome, St Paul’s command was prudent (not an endorsement). If I were a slaveowner, I would have been wrong, but my guilt might be mitigated by the cultural conditioning of the time. **Clearly it took some time for the Church to understand that human slavery is a crime just short of murder, opposable in *all *circumstances… **
If I were a slave-owning pope, I would still be wrong, even if my slaves were treated humanely (I cannot imagine a slave ever being treated “fairly” by his master as long as he is still a slave).
Even if a there was ever a Pope that owned a “slave”, is being a “slave” such a bad deal if a “slave” is treated justly and fairly? “Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven.” (Colossians 4:1)**
Being a slave is a repudiation of the free will God gives us and a violation of our human dignity. For a slave in ancient Rome, St Paul’s command was prudent (not an endorsement). If I were a slaveowner, I would have been wrong, but my guilt might be mitigated by the cultural conditioning of the time. **Clearly it took some time for the Church to understand that human slavery is a crime just short of murder, opposable in *all *circumstances… **
If I were a slave-owning pope, I would still be wrong, even if my slaves were treated humanely (I cannot imagine a slave ever being treated “fairly” by his master as long as he is still a slave).
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
I think you neglected the slave trade, where many slaves of that time came from.
Is slavery something that should be tolerated? The Bible tells us that the character of God was more tolerant of owning and beating slaves than that of picking up on the Sabbath:
Numbers 15:32-36:
*While the people of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron and to all the congregation. 34 They put him in custody, because it had not been made clear what should be done to him. 35 And the LORD said to Moses, “The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses. *
And as I mentioned previously, God almost killed Moses because his son hadn’t been circumcised quickly enough. It says a great deal about the character of God as to where his priorities lie, where dehumanising and manslaughters a human being is tolerated but breaches of his ordinances brings death. Slavery should not be tolerated whatsoever. At least with divorce, which you used to compare with slavery, there are instances where it is needed (e.g. if a wife is being beaten by her husband). The only needs slavery fills is the coffers of the landowner and evil sickness of the slavedriver.
Again, I bring up my original post where I asked to imagine if God allowed a woman to be raped so long as she was unmarried and it wasn’t the Sabbath. Limiting the parameters when someone can be raped doesn’t wash away how reprehensible that act is doesn’t mean it’s ever not evil.
You can’t be both a human being and property. It’s either or. Considering that the Bible repeatedly calls slaves property I argue that the Bible does not consider them human beings.
*** I’d be very curious what others think of this next part! ***
Let’s break down the Bible quote you used verse by verse:
Exodus 21
Verse 20 - “If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.”
Verse 21 - “If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.”
(Even though I quoted it in my earlier post, you purposely left out this key passage in yours.)
Verse 22 - "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide.
(You skipped this passage too, and it’s easy to see why.)
Verse 23 - “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life,”
You see? Look at the two bolded parts on verses 22 and 23. Clearly 23 is meant as a counterpoint to 22. Yet, you stitched 23 and 20 together as if they were run together. I don’t know whether you just copied and pasted it from some apologetics website or tried to pull a fast one on us, but your quote is highly inaccurate.
If those defects are love, compassion, sympathy, and honesty then I shall not hide said defects but embrace them.
(I snipped the last quote about Anthony Flew since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.)
M
Mike_from_NJ
Guest
No, I think SpidersfromMars had it right. It is dehumanizing. It strips man of his most basic dignity and identity.
No matter the font that you use, you’re neglecting points brough up earlier:
- This was only for Hebrew slaves.
- This was only for males.
- This was only for those willing to give up his wife and children if he had gained them during his slavery.
I don’t see any historians handwaving slavery for these cultures as apologists try to do with slavery in the Bible. I accept that there was slavery in numerous places during that time, and I accept that the morals of societies in those times (including the Hebrews) were different from ours.
But the difference is people trying to play off that the slavery of the Hebrews was humane or morally better is beyond ludicrous. It’s the desire to wipe away the unfortunate implications: That if the actions of a god are not just wrong but tremendously amoral, then one can no longer call that god perfect or good.
The numerous passages I quoted disagree, as does the understanding of human dignity.
Based on what we’ve seen the church had been using slaves for over a millennium. The United States ended slavery after less than a century (and that was far, far too late).
A
Abu
Guest
The fallacy is evident, as this atheist tries to construct a blameworthy God, myopically blames Christ’s own Church for enslaving, and constructs his own falsities.
In post #14 we’ve seen the facts on the condemnation from St Paul, on the former slaves who became Popes Pius I and Callistus I, and the testimony of the non-Catholic Dr Rodney Stark that “Of the major world faiths, only Christianity has devoted serious and sustained attention to human rights, as opposed to human duties”, and “The theological conclusion that slavery is sinful has been unique to Christianity (although several early Jewish sects also rejected slavery).”
While Christian theologians could develop St Paul’s understanding of God’s will concerning slavery, such a development was and is essentially precluded in other faiths, except as heresies.
[See *The Victory of Reason, Random House, 2005, p 29-31].
U.S. Economist, Stanford University professor, and Hoover Institute Senior Fellow, African Thomas Sowell, in Black Rednecks & White Liberals, in an essay titled The Real History of Slavery, declares:
“Slavery is almost as old as humanity, and as widespread as the globe. The Islamic world was notorious for its slave trade. Slavs were notoriously slaves. In fact the word “slave” comes from slav. Arabs and North Africans enslaved Europeans, Europeans enslaved other Europeans, Africans enslaved other Africans. Everyone enslaved someone. It was all the rage. While slavery was common to all civilizations, as well as to peoples considered uncivilized, only one civilization developed a moral revulsion against it, very late in its history — Western civilization…”
The reason? The teaching of the Catholic Church from the beginning came to be believed widely as true.
D
drafdog
Guest
The Torah permitted the ownership of slaves. It provided a handful of rules regarding ownership rights and treatment of slaves.
Jesus remarked peripherally on this. “Your righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.”
No one once refers to this in anything I have read regarding Christian ownership of slaves. Had there been reference to this text, we would have been commanded to release non-Christian slaves after seven years and Christian slaves after 3 1/2 years. We would have released all family members as a unit and at the same time. There would have been other restrictions as well but this is just an example of how a Christian should actually behave toward slaves.
But we didn’t. Shame on us.
Reb Levi
Jesus remarked peripherally on this. “Your righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees.”
No one once refers to this in anything I have read regarding Christian ownership of slaves. Had there been reference to this text, we would have been commanded to release non-Christian slaves after seven years and Christian slaves after 3 1/2 years. We would have released all family members as a unit and at the same time. There would have been other restrictions as well but this is just an example of how a Christian should actually behave toward slaves.
But we didn’t. Shame on us.
Reb Levi
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
He did, explicitly, as did St. Paul, and St. John, both of whom were presumably passing along what they learned from Him.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
He did, explicitly, as did St. Paul, and St. John, both of whom were presumably passing along what they learned from Him.
A
Abu
Guest
Stuck in a rut.
Face the reality of Christ’s Church leading the emancipation:
In Ephesians 6:5, 8, Paul is often quoted eagerly, but very seldom ver. 9: “Masters, do the same to them, and forbear threatening, knowing that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no, partiality with Him.” This equality before God encouraged the early Church to convert slaves – former slaves became Popes Pius I and Callistus I. With the demise of the Roman empire, the embrace of those in slavery continued and only ordination to the priesthood was denied.
Priests urged owners to free their slaves, and by the seventh century there was considerable evidence of unions of free men and female slaves. In 649 Clovis II, king of the Franks, married his British slave Clotilda. After his death, Clotilda campaigned to halt the slave trade and to redeem those in slavery. On her death she was declared a saint by the Church.
By the ninth century Charlemagne opposed slavery and the pope and many influential clerics strove for the freedom of slaves. During the eleventh century both St Wulfstan and St Anselm campaigned to remove the last vestiges of slavery from most of Christendom.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
O.K., sure.
The word used for “avenged” (other translations use “punished”) in the original is “naqam,” which always connotes capital punishment when used in the OT. So the injunction is again that if you beat a servant with a rod (variant translation: staff) and he dies, you will be put to death. In context, the next lines refer to “a life for a life,” denoting that the servant is to be regarded as another human being whose life has value, and that he is not a simple piece of property.
Then (as in many cultures today), a servant could be struck with a rod for disobeying an order or theft, etc. The man who held the servant under debt bondage would probably argue that he couldn’t fire the bonded servant for misbehavior, and he was not allowed to starve him or her by depriving the servant of food, so how else would he discipline him or her? This is not just in our eyes and from our modern perspective, although many people nowadays, including many Christians, argue for corporal punishment as an option for disciplining their own children, or for children in school. I don’t agree with such policies, but the point is that many modern people [including some atheists] do argue for the use of physical force as reprimand, so it is not an unusual viewpoint even now, and it was common in schools (both public and parochial) within recent memory in our country. I was struck in parochial grade school, and far more severely later in public school, and it was not uncommon for a private to get struck by an NCO as discipline in the military (although officially against regs) until recently. As a trainee in the Army in the early 1980s, I once got whipped repeatedly with a static line (a heavy nylon cord) by an NCO in jump school until I could perform a landing fall to his standards. Older veterans could probably tell you similar stories of times when a punch in the stomach or eye was the lesser, non-judicial alternative to an Article 15. Not a pleasant experience for me, but again, such corporal punishment is not something totally outside our ken today.
I would note that in the officially atheist societies in the 20th century and the 21st century, the punishment for failure to follow orders or theft by one in the approximate position of the bonded servants/slaves which you bring up - such as slave laborers in the gulags of the former Soviet Union, the political prisoners who were forced to work in the agricultural fields after the Chinese Cultural revolution or after Pol Pot’s Year Zero in Cambodia - the penalties for infractions were likely to be far more severe, and final, than a blow from a staff or rod. And these instances happened in recent memory, not ancient history, so while you as an individual atheist embrace views based on “love, compassion, sympathy, and honesty” it would be difficult to make any claim that atheism as a worldview supports any such laudable goals.
(cont.)
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
In the ancient culture of the Israelites, if a man struck the servant badly enough to maim him or her, such as by knocking out a tooth or damaging an eye, his or her remaining debt was discharged and he or she was to be set free immediately. This would seem to serve as a powerful incentive NOT to abuse your servants, as you would forfeit any financial right to their services.
Compare this Jewish law to a preeminent secular code of the ancient world, the Code of Hammurabi, which allowed masters to cut off a slave’s ear for punishment, and which required only that a man who harmed another man’s slave must pay the master for the injury:
From the Code of Hammurabi:
Like the modified Hittite law that required masters who had harmed their slaves to pay a physician to provide medical treatment, so here the employer had to pay the medical bills for the servant he had wounded. As evidence, in verse 21, the Hebrew pronoun “hu” refers not to the servant (“he”) but to the fee (“that”) paid to the doctor tending to the wounded servant. Hoffner wrote in his 2008 article Slavery and Slave Laws in Ancient Hatti and Israel, “The fact that the master provided care at his own expense would be a significant factor when the judges respond to a charge of intentional homicide.” So, if you abuse someone but not kill them (debt servant or free man), you were not to be put to the death or to be beaten up as you did them, but would instead be required to pay them a fine, and provide or pay for their medical care. That sounds more than a little like…our current system. If I beat up my butler, I will not be executed by the state (unless he dies), nor is my butler allowed to beat me up, but I have to pay his medical bills and a civil fine so that I don’t continue to abuse butlers.
Hope this is somewhat helpful to you.
Compare this Jewish law to a preeminent secular code of the ancient world, the Code of Hammurabi, which allowed masters to cut off a slave’s ear for punishment, and which required only that a man who harmed another man’s slave must pay the master for the injury:
From the Code of Hammurabi:
The Jews were uniquely required by Mosaic Law to shelter and hide slaves (Deut. 23:15-16) - unlike the American antebellum example, where it was a felony to help a fugitive slave. Hammurabi didn’t like people helping slaves, BTW:
Regarding the rather troubling passage, “for the slave is his money,” does this mean the indentured servant was considered his property? Ancient Near Eastern scholar Harry Hoffner of the University of Chicago argues that a superior translation of that passage is “that [fee] is his money/ silver.” Hoffner offers that the “fee” reading is based on the context of the previous passage, Exodus 21:18–19 (which is part of a section on punishments dealing with quarrels and accidental killing): “If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed, if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.” This reading makes sense to me.
Like the modified Hittite law that required masters who had harmed their slaves to pay a physician to provide medical treatment, so here the employer had to pay the medical bills for the servant he had wounded. As evidence, in verse 21, the Hebrew pronoun “hu” refers not to the servant (“he”) but to the fee (“that”) paid to the doctor tending to the wounded servant. Hoffner wrote in his 2008 article Slavery and Slave Laws in Ancient Hatti and Israel, “The fact that the master provided care at his own expense would be a significant factor when the judges respond to a charge of intentional homicide.” So, if you abuse someone but not kill them (debt servant or free man), you were not to be put to the death or to be beaten up as you did them, but would instead be required to pay them a fine, and provide or pay for their medical care. That sounds more than a little like…our current system. If I beat up my butler, I will not be executed by the state (unless he dies), nor is my butler allowed to beat me up, but I have to pay his medical bills and a civil fine so that I don’t continue to abuse butlers.
Hope this is somewhat helpful to you.
R
Reep
Guest
I see this encyclical cited as condemning slavery, but the encyclical seems only to be condemning the enslavement (“vexing, despoiling, reducing to servitude”) as well as the initial sale of black Africans. Pope Gregory seems very careful NOT to include in his condemnation, either the existing ownership of slaves, nor the sale of slaves after they are sold by original slave traders. Perhaps I read it wrong:
**We warn **and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition, that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. Further, in the hope of gain, propositions of purchase being made to the first owners of the Blacks, dissensions and almost perpetual conflicts are aroused in these regions.
. . . **We prohibit **and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks
What I am really asking, is where does he actually condemn the ownership of slaves by the plantation owners or the sale of slaves after first purchase?
I thought at first that those practices quoted in the green font were being condemned, but as I read it carefully, the passage just seems to be describing the plight of “the Blacks” cited just before that point in the text. If you parse out the adjectives in green, you are left with “that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks…are…bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour,” In other words he is talking about slave trafficking, not ownership.
So, if ** no blanket condemnation for all time** came in 1839, when did it come?
A
Abu
Guest
There seems to be an appalling ignorance of the Church’s teaching accompanied by a tone of animosity to Her which can only harm the instigators.
There existed the practice of various types of slavery before the 15th century. However, it was not until the 15th century, and with growing frequency from the 16th to the 19th centuries, that racial slavery as we know it became a major problem. It is this form of servitude that is called to mind when we think today of the institution of slavery, and is the type which was to prevail in parts of the New World for over four centuries.
The Magisterium also condemned from the beginning the colonial slavery that developed in the newly discovered lands.
Fr Joel Panzer:
“The pontifical decree known as *The Sublime God *has indeed had an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World. Recently, authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez [liberation theologian] have noted this fact: 'The bull of Pope Paul III, *Sublimis Deus *(June 2, 1537), is regarded as the most important papal pronouncement on the human condition of the Indians.’ It is, moreover, addressed to all of the Christian faithful in the world, and not to a particular bishop in one area, thereby not limiting its significance, but universalizing it.”
“Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known to the Holy See. Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639.”
See: **The Popes And Slavery: Setting The Record Straight
Fr. Joel S. Panzer **
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM
Sixty years before Columbus “discovered” the New World, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull *Sicut Dudum *(1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands . . . who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”
A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull *Sublimis Deus *(1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a latae sententiae excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.
It should be noted that Isobella of Spain faithful to the Church’s rules, decreed that Columbus’s New World natives were subjects of the Spanish crown and therefore could not be enslaved. Most of Columbus’ slaves were freed and ordered returned to the New World.
There existed the practice of various types of slavery before the 15th century. However, it was not until the 15th century, and with growing frequency from the 16th to the 19th centuries, that racial slavery as we know it became a major problem. It is this form of servitude that is called to mind when we think today of the institution of slavery, and is the type which was to prevail in parts of the New World for over four centuries.
The Magisterium also condemned from the beginning the colonial slavery that developed in the newly discovered lands.
Fr Joel Panzer:
“The pontifical decree known as *The Sublime God *has indeed had an exalted role in the cause of social justice in the New World. Recently, authors such as Gustavo Gutierrez [liberation theologian] have noted this fact: 'The bull of Pope Paul III, *Sublimis Deus *(June 2, 1537), is regarded as the most important papal pronouncement on the human condition of the Indians.’ It is, moreover, addressed to all of the Christian faithful in the world, and not to a particular bishop in one area, thereby not limiting its significance, but universalizing it.”
“Eugene IV and Paul III did not hesitate to condemn the forced servitude of Blacks and Indians, and they did so once such practices became known to the Holy See. Their teaching was continued by Gregory XIV in 1591 and by Urban VIII in 1639.”
See: **The Popes And Slavery: Setting The Record Straight
Fr. Joel S. Panzer **
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/POPSLAVE.HTM
Sixty years before Columbus “discovered” the New World, Pope Eugene IV condemned the enslavement of peoples in the newly colonized Canary Islands. His bull *Sicut Dudum *(1435) rebuked European enslavers and commanded that “all and each of the faithful of each sex, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their earlier liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of [the] Canary Islands . . . who have been made subject to slavery. These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.”
A century later, Pope Paul III applied the same principle to the newly encountered inhabitants of the West and South Indies in the bull *Sublimis Deus *(1537). Therein he described the enslavers as allies of the devil and declared attempts to justify such slavery “null and void.” Accompanying the bull was another document, Pastorale Officium, which attached a latae sententiae excommunication remittable only by the pope himself for those who attempted to enslave the Indians or steal their goods.
It should be noted that Isobella of Spain faithful to the Church’s rules, decreed that Columbus’s New World natives were subjects of the Spanish crown and therefore could not be enslaved. Most of Columbus’ slaves were freed and ordered returned to the New World.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
Read in its entirety, it condemns slave trafficking (as did St. Paul, St. John, St… Augustine, St. Patrick, and numerous other saints and popes throughout history), and also slave ownership, by citing the papal bulls of his predecessors that condemn keeping slaves, thus emphasizing the continuing nature of the Catholic magisterial position in the matter of slave trafficking and ownership. Although the focus of the letter is the slave trade itself, it clearly condemns all the practices of ownership. I have bolded the relevant portions for which you asked:
(cont.)
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
That was in 1839. In 1861, As an example of the Magisterium’s authentic traditional teaching in this matter as reflected in the American experience, look at the Church’s response to Bishop Auguste Marie Martin of Louisiana in 1861. Bishop Martin issued a pastoral letter to his diocese “on the occasion of the War of Southern Independence,” in which he argued that slavery was “the manifest will of God” that Catholics should condone “snatching from the barbarity of their ferocious customs thousands of children of Canaan,” who were the descendents of those cursed by Noah. (This was the same argument used by many Protestant slave-owners in justifying the institution of slavery.) Bishop Martin wrote that it was a obligatory that Catholics condemn abolitionists because they “upset the will of Providence” and God’s “merciful plans for unrighteous actions.” Father Napoleon Joseph Perchr, coadjutor of the Archdiocese of New Orleans, gave his imprimatur for the pastoral letter to be published in the local Catholic newspaper.
The Vatican was not happy, to say the least, and the Roman Congregation of the Index, charged with censoring ideas which were unacceptable to Catholic Doctrine, and which spoke with the direct authority of the Pope (at that time, Pius IX) reproved Bishop Martin:
It’s worth quoting at some length: P. fr. Vincenzo M. Gatti, O.P., wrote that he had read Bishop Martin’s letter “in order to fulfill the task entrusted to me by the Most Reverend Secretary [of State for the Vatican, Cardinal Barnabo].”
“Bishop Martin deals with slavery as existing in the Southern Confederate States to which Lousiana, where this diocese is situated, belongs. Among other things he affirms what I quote in full, so that you may judge its meanining, its exactness, and its erroneousness.”
After quoting the pastoral letter in full, he continues:
“Now against these statements I set Pope Gregory’s words which I quote in full, since they sum up and put into force again all that his predecessors the Sovereign Pontiffs have taught on this matter.”
He then quotes the full text of In Supremo Apostalatus, which I cited above and won’t include again here.
Fr. Gatti observes that God in no way approves of slavery, as Bishop Martin suggested:
*OBSERVATION: Here I make two remarks:
The Vatican was not happy, to say the least, and the Roman Congregation of the Index, charged with censoring ideas which were unacceptable to Catholic Doctrine, and which spoke with the direct authority of the Pope (at that time, Pius IX) reproved Bishop Martin:
It’s worth quoting at some length: P. fr. Vincenzo M. Gatti, O.P., wrote that he had read Bishop Martin’s letter “in order to fulfill the task entrusted to me by the Most Reverend Secretary [of State for the Vatican, Cardinal Barnabo].”
“Bishop Martin deals with slavery as existing in the Southern Confederate States to which Lousiana, where this diocese is situated, belongs. Among other things he affirms what I quote in full, so that you may judge its meanining, its exactness, and its erroneousness.”
After quoting the pastoral letter in full, he continues:
“Now against these statements I set Pope Gregory’s words which I quote in full, since they sum up and put into force again all that his predecessors the Sovereign Pontiffs have taught on this matter.”
He then quotes the full text of In Supremo Apostalatus, which I cited above and won’t include again here.
Fr. Gatti observes that God in no way approves of slavery, as Bishop Martin suggested:
*OBSERVATION: Here I make two remarks:
- The Bishop attributes to God what is an execrable violence of men, since he affirms that God “for centuries has been snatching from the barbarity of their ferocious customs thousands of childen of the race of Canaan.” By these words he seems to approve of the slave trade of Negroes and to accept it in principle. Had he stated that God derives good for these unfortunate people, or at least for some of them, from this iniquity and this violation of the natural and ecclesiastical law, no objection could be made against it. But we see no intention of saying this. On the contrary, it appears to be just the opposite from what follows.
- The Bishop supposes that there exists a natural difference between the Negroes, whom he calls the children of Canaan, and the Whites, when he says that the latter are the privileged ones of the great human family and the former are still now lying under the curse of Noah. And he makes it the latter’s duty to be the Negroes’ sheperds, fathers, and masters…we also must observe that both the ancient and the modern supporters of the theory of slavery advanced as one of the reasons for its acceptability the fact that the Negroes have been subjected to others by the curse of Noah. But those who oppose this theory, besides denying its validity, at least after the Christian era when the curse would not be valid any longer, deny the fact itself, i.e., that the Negroes descend from Canaan.
A
Arizona_Mike
Guest
Father Gatti then uses the Bible to show the tribes of Africa were not the cursed descendents of Canaan. Afterwards, he notes in regards to Bishop Martin’s claim that the slaves benefit from their conversion to Christianity:
*OBSERVATION: The Bishop calls the Negroes poor children, while they are not such. As I stressed above, Noah did not curse Canaan…but even if they were cursed by Noah, they are not cursed any longer after the coming of Jesus Christ when, as the Apostle says, there is no distinction between Jew and gentile, between freeman and slave, between man and woman, since we are all sons of the same divine Father. In contrast, Bishop Martin seems to consider the opposite teaching to be the teaching of the Gospel. Did Jesus Christ say: “Go snatch them by force from their native country, drag them to your countries, and convert them?” No, He did not. But He sad: “Go throughout the world; teach all the people…and preach the Gospel to every man.” And did He say: “In exchange for the spiritual good that you will do, exploit them as instruments for your material interests?” No, He did not, but rather he said: “Freely give what you have freely received.” As we know from history, the Negroes are sold by the chiefs who put them on the market after snatching them by force from their native land. These unfortunates are brought by slave traders who take advantage of them as their own property. The aim of teaching the Christian Faith, even if it exists, which very often it does not, is a trifling matter and it does not justify the iniquity which they commit in this trade."
The philanthropists of the last and of this century are not mistaken when they criticize and condemn the slave trade of the Negroes and their subjection to ill treatment and to slavery, since they agree with the Catholic doctrine in this respect; yet at least some of them err if they extend this principle too far and if they mistake slavery deriving from a just title, and which does not harm other people’s rights, for slavery originating in violence and in violation of the natural law. The slavery of the Negroes belongs precisely to this latter kind of slavery; against this Sovereign Pontiffs have risen up very often and have reproved and condemned it. The bishop deals with this kind of slavery and defends it!
*
Father Gatti attacked Bishop Martin’s arguments that slaves’ “original degradation” justifies their slavery. Father Gatti notes that both blacks and whites can be learned and virtuous people with the proper education and Catholic education:
*From this treatment one can easily infer that the Bishop favors the enemies of the Catholic Church who accuse her of approving slavery, which is the origin of the vile trade and of the brutal treatment of the Negroes from Africa. It makes the Church unjustly odious; it promotes the mistake of those who believe that the slave trade of the Negroes is lawful and who try to avoid condemnation of the Sovereign Pontiffs with every kind of cavil [argument].
Such a mistake is condemned by the natural law, by the Gospel, by the Pontifical Constitution, and is reproved with the common sense of the Christian peoples, though self-interest and corruption reduce it to silence in some of them, This mistake favors the preservation of slavery in the Southern states in opposition to the will of the Sovereign Pontiffs who, as is clear from the words I have quoted above, have condemned not only the slave trade but slavery itself: “to reduce to slavery, to retain in slavery.” And they have condemned also those who favor it, or those who teach it to be lawful,** “or lend counsel, succor, favor, and co-operation to those acting, under no matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach this way of acting is allowable or co-operate in any manner whatever with the practices indicated.**”*/ (Emphasis in the original.)
The Church’s official position on slavery in the American south was unambiguous.
It should be noted that after being rebuked by Rome, a chastened Bishop Martin reformed and begin an apostolic mission to care for freed slaves.
*OBSERVATION: The Bishop calls the Negroes poor children, while they are not such. As I stressed above, Noah did not curse Canaan…but even if they were cursed by Noah, they are not cursed any longer after the coming of Jesus Christ when, as the Apostle says, there is no distinction between Jew and gentile, between freeman and slave, between man and woman, since we are all sons of the same divine Father. In contrast, Bishop Martin seems to consider the opposite teaching to be the teaching of the Gospel. Did Jesus Christ say: “Go snatch them by force from their native country, drag them to your countries, and convert them?” No, He did not. But He sad: “Go throughout the world; teach all the people…and preach the Gospel to every man.” And did He say: “In exchange for the spiritual good that you will do, exploit them as instruments for your material interests?” No, He did not, but rather he said: “Freely give what you have freely received.” As we know from history, the Negroes are sold by the chiefs who put them on the market after snatching them by force from their native land. These unfortunates are brought by slave traders who take advantage of them as their own property. The aim of teaching the Christian Faith, even if it exists, which very often it does not, is a trifling matter and it does not justify the iniquity which they commit in this trade."
The philanthropists of the last and of this century are not mistaken when they criticize and condemn the slave trade of the Negroes and their subjection to ill treatment and to slavery, since they agree with the Catholic doctrine in this respect; yet at least some of them err if they extend this principle too far and if they mistake slavery deriving from a just title, and which does not harm other people’s rights, for slavery originating in violence and in violation of the natural law. The slavery of the Negroes belongs precisely to this latter kind of slavery; against this Sovereign Pontiffs have risen up very often and have reproved and condemned it. The bishop deals with this kind of slavery and defends it!
*
Father Gatti attacked Bishop Martin’s arguments that slaves’ “original degradation” justifies their slavery. Father Gatti notes that both blacks and whites can be learned and virtuous people with the proper education and Catholic education:
*From this treatment one can easily infer that the Bishop favors the enemies of the Catholic Church who accuse her of approving slavery, which is the origin of the vile trade and of the brutal treatment of the Negroes from Africa. It makes the Church unjustly odious; it promotes the mistake of those who believe that the slave trade of the Negroes is lawful and who try to avoid condemnation of the Sovereign Pontiffs with every kind of cavil [argument].
Such a mistake is condemned by the natural law, by the Gospel, by the Pontifical Constitution, and is reproved with the common sense of the Christian peoples, though self-interest and corruption reduce it to silence in some of them, This mistake favors the preservation of slavery in the Southern states in opposition to the will of the Sovereign Pontiffs who, as is clear from the words I have quoted above, have condemned not only the slave trade but slavery itself: “to reduce to slavery, to retain in slavery.” And they have condemned also those who favor it, or those who teach it to be lawful,** “or lend counsel, succor, favor, and co-operation to those acting, under no matter what pretext or excuse, or who proclaim and teach this way of acting is allowable or co-operate in any manner whatever with the practices indicated.**”*/ (Emphasis in the original.)
The Church’s official position on slavery in the American south was unambiguous.
It should be noted that after being rebuked by Rome, a chastened Bishop Martin reformed and begin an apostolic mission to care for freed slaves.
R
Reep
Guest
Thanks Mike, for the thought and effort that went into your messages. I am sure our modern sensibilities make it hard to appreciate why it took so many centuries to come to an outright, explicit condemnation of human slavery. I suspect this is one of those matters that took time because of the “hardness of our hearts,”
- Status